1932

Abstract

As technology evolves and is incorporated into testing and assessment applications, psychologists have opportunities to improve testing processes making scores on measurement tools more accurate, the administration process more efficient, and often the assessment process more realistic. At the same time, they also must contend with fundamental changes in the assumptions made about good testing practices and confront new problems that are created by technological enhancements. Issues such as distractions and their implications for test performance, changes to the applicant pool and their effect on adverse impact, and cheating and its impact on test scores must be explored. This article provides examples of how technology is being used in tests and assessments, discusses the advantages and disadvantages of relying on technology, and offers an agenda for future research.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091317
2015-04-10
2024-03-30
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/orgpsych/2/1/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091317.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091317&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Akamai 2014. The state of the Internet report. http://www.akamai.com/stateoftheinternet/
  2. Anderson N, Witvliet C. 2008. Fairness reactions to personnel selection methods: an international comparison between the Netherlands, the United States, France, Spain, Portugal, and Singapore. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 16:1–13 [Google Scholar]
  3. APA (Am. Psychol. Assoc.) 2002. Ethical standards of psychologists. Am. Psychol. 57:1060–73 [Google Scholar]
  4. Arthur WA, Doverspike D, Muñoz GJ, Taylor JE, Carr AE. 2014. The use of mobile devices in high-stakes remotely delivered assessments and testing. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 22:113–23 [Google Scholar]
  5. Arthur WA, Glaze RM, Villado AJ, Taylor JE. 2009. Unproctored Internet-based tests of cognitive ability and personality: magnitude of cheating and distortion. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 2:39–45 [Google Scholar]
  6. Arthur WA, Villado AJ. 2008. The importance of distinguishing between constructs and methods when comparing predictors in personnel selection research and practice. J. Appl. Psychol. 93:435–42 [Google Scholar]
  7. Arvey RD, Sackett PR. 1993. Fairness in selection: current developments and perspectives. Personnel Selection in Organizations Schmitt N, Borman WC. 171–202 San Francisco: Jossey-Bass [Google Scholar]
  8. Aon 2014. Recruitment process outsourcing. http://www.aon.com/human-capital-consulting/hrbpo/recruitment_process_outsourcing.jsp
  9. Bartram D. 2009. The International Test Commission guidelines on computer-based and Internet-delivered testing. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 2:11–13 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bauer TN, Truxillo DM, Paronto ME, Weekley JA, Campion MA. 2004. Applicant reactions to different selection technology: face-to-face, interactive voice response, and computer-assisted telephone screening interviews. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 12:135–48 [Google Scholar]
  11. Beaty J, Grauer E, Davis J. 2006. Unproctored Internet testing: important questions and empirical answers. Presented at Annu. Conf. Soc. Ind./Organ. Psychol., 21st, Dallas
  12. Beaty JC, Nye C, Borneman M, Kantrowitz TM, Drasgow F, Grauer E. 2011. Proctored versus unproctored Internet tests: Are unproctored tests as predictive of job performance?. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 19:1–10 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bell BS, Ryan AM, Wiechmann D. 2004. Justice expectations and applicant perceptions. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 12:24–38 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bertolino M, Steiner DD. 2007. Fairness reactions to selection methods: an Italian study. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 15:197–205 [Google Scholar]
  15. Boudreau JW, Rynes SL. 1985. Role of recruitment in staffing utility analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 70:453–66 [Google Scholar]
  16. Braddy PW, Thompson LF, Wuensch KL, Grossnickle WF. 2003. Internet recruiting: the effects of web page design features. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 21:374–85 [Google Scholar]
  17. Bryant SE. 2014. Assessment and technology: till death do us part. Presented at Annu. Conf. Soc. Ind. Organ. Psychol., 29th, Honolulu
  18. Buchanan T, Smith JL. 1999. Using the Internet for psychological research: personality testing on the World Wide Web. Br. J. Psychol. 90:125–44 [Google Scholar]
  19. Burke E. 2007. Addressing the issue of cheating and unsupervised online ability testing. Presented at Eur. Congr. Work Organ. Psychol., 13th, Stockholm
  20. Burke E. 2009. Preserving the integrity of online testing. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 2:35–38 [Google Scholar]
  21. Cacioppo JT, Berntson GG, Nusbaum HC. 2008. Neuroimaging as a new tool in the toolbox of psychological science. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci 17:62–67 [Google Scholar]
  22. Chan D, Schmitt N. 1997. Video-based versus paper-and-pencil method of assessment in situational judgment tests: subgroup differences in test performance and face validity perceptions. J. Appl. Psychol. 82:143–59 [Google Scholar]
  23. Chang HH, Ying Z. 1999. Alpha-stratified multi-stage computerized adaptive testing. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 23:211–22 [Google Scholar]
  24. Chapman DS, Uggerslev KL, Webster J. 2003. Applicant reactions to face-to-face and technology-mediated interviews. A field investigation. J. Appl. Psychol. 88:944–53 [Google Scholar]
  25. Chuah SC, Drasgow F, Roberts BW. 2006. Personality assessment: Does the medium matter? No. J. Res. Personal. 40:359–76 [Google Scholar]
  26. Cober RT, Brown DJ, Levy PE. 2004. Form, content, and function: an evaluative methodology for corporate employment web sites. Hum. Resour. Manag. 43:201–18 [Google Scholar]
  27. Cucina JM, Busciglio HH, Thomas PH, Callen NF, Walker DD, Schoepfer RJG. 2011. Video-based testing at U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Technology-Enhanced Assessment of Talent Tippins NT, Adler S. 338–54 San Francisco: Jossey-Bass [Google Scholar]
  28. Cucina JM, Stewart K, Gast IF, Votraw L. 2013. Video-based testing: an applied example and technology-enhanced assessment: considering psychometrics. Presented at Annu. Conf. Soc. Ind. Organ. Psychol., 28th, Houston
  29. Derous E, Born M, DeWitte K. 2004. How applicants want and expect to be treated: applicants’ selection treatment beliefs and the development of the social process questionnaire on selection. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 12:99–119 [Google Scholar]
  30. Dineen BR, Ling J, Ash SR, DelVecchio D. 2007. Aesthetic properties and message customization: navigating the dark side of web recruitment. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:356–72 [Google Scholar]
  31. Do B. 2009. Research on unproctored Internet testing. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 2:49–51 [Google Scholar]
  32. Doverspike D, Arthur W Jr, Taylor JE, Carr AE. 2012. Mobile mania: impact of device type on remotely delivered assessments. Presented at Annu. Conf. Soc. Ind. Organ. Psychol., 27th, San Diego
  33. Drasgow F, Nye CD, Guo J, Tay L. 2009. Cheating on proctored tests: the other side of the unproctored debate. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 2:46–48 [Google Scholar]
  34. Dwight SA, Donovan JJ. 2003. Do warnings not to fake reduce faking?. Hum. Perform. 16:1–23 [Google Scholar]
  35. Dwight SA, Fiegelson ME. 2000. A quantitative review of the effect of computerized testing on the measurement of social desirability. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 60:340–60 [Google Scholar]
  36. EEOC (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) 1978. Uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures. 29 CFR, 1607.1.Washington, DC. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title29-vol4/xml/CFR-2011-title29-vol4-part1607.xml
  37. Fallaw SS, Kantrowitz TM. 2013. Testing via smart mobile devices. Presented at Annu. Conf. Soc. Ind. Organ. Psychol., 28th, Houston
  38. Fan J, Gao D, Carroll SA, Lopez FJ, Tian TS, Meng H. 2012. Testing the efficacy of a new procedure for reducing faking on personality tests within selection contexts. J. Appl. Psychol. 97:866–80 [Google Scholar]
  39. Fetzer M, Handler C, McNamara J. 2014. Get your game on! How to use gaming and simulations to revolutionize your hiring/training processes. Presented at Annu. Conf. Soc. Ind. Organ. Psychol., 29th, Honolulu
  40. Foster D. 2009. Secure, online, high-stakes testing: science fiction or business reality?. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 2:31–34 [Google Scholar]
  41. Gibbons A, Hughes DE, Riley P, Thornton GC, Sanchez D. 2013. Is the future here? Assessment center technology use and benefits. Acad. Manag. Proc. http://proceedings.aom.org/content/2013/1/14819.short
  42. Gibby RE, Ispas D, McCloy RA, Biga A. 2009. Moving beyond the challenges to make unproctored Internet testing a reality. Ind. Organ. Psychol 2:64–68 [Google Scholar]
  43. Gibby RE, McCloy RA. 2011. Computerized adaptive testing. Technology-Enhanced Assessment of Talent Tippins NT, Adler S. 153–89 San Francisco: Jossey-Bass [Google Scholar]
  44. Gilliland SW, Hale JMS. 2005. How can justice be used to improve employee selection practices?. Handbook of Organizational Justice Greenberg J, Colquitt JA. 411–38 Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
  45. Guo J, Drasgow F. 2010. Identifying cheating on unproctored Internet tests: the Z-test and the likelihood ratio test. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 18:351–64 [Google Scholar]
  46. Harris MM. 2006. Internet testing: the examinee perspective. Computer-Based Testing and the Internet: Issues and Advances Bartram D, Hambleton RK. 115–34 Chichester, UK: Wiley [Google Scholar]
  47. Hausknecht JP, Day DV, Thomas SC. 2004. Applicant reactions to selection procedures: an updated model and meta-analysis. Pers. Psychol. 57:639–83 [Google Scholar]
  48. Hawkes B. 2013. Developing evidence-based guidelines for testing on mobile devices. Presented at Annu. Conf. Soc. Ind. Organ. Psychol., 28th, Houston
  49. Hense R, Golden J, Burnett J. 2009. Making the case for unproctored Internet testing: Do the rewards outweigh the risks?. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 2:20–23 [Google Scholar]
  50. ITC (Int. Test Comm.) 2006. International guidelines on computer-based and Internet-delivered testing. Int. J. Test. 6:143–71 [Google Scholar]
  51. Kaminski KA, Hemingway MA. 2009. To proctor or not to proctor? Balancing business needs with validity in online assessment. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 2:24–26 [Google Scholar]
  52. Kanning LP, Grewe K, Hollenberg S, Hadouch M. 2006. From the subjects’ point of view: reactions to different types of situational judgment items. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 32:168–76 [Google Scholar]
  53. Kantrowitz TM, Fetzer MS, Dawson CR. 2011. Computer adaptive testing (CAT): a faster, smarter, and more secure approach to pre-employment testing. J. Bus. Psychol. 26:227–32 [Google Scholar]
  54. Karim M, Kaminsky S, Behrend T. 2013. Effects of remote proctoring on test performance and applicant reactions. Presented at Annu. Conf. Soc. Ind. Organ. Psychol., 28th, Houston
  55. Landers RN, Sackett PR. 2012. Offsetting performance losses due to cheating in unproctored Internet-based testing by increasing the applicant pool. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 20:220–28 [Google Scholar]
  56. Landers RN, Sackett PR, Tuzinski KA. 2011. Retesting after initial failure, coaching rumors, and warnings against faking in online personality measures for selection. J. Appl. Psychol. 96:202–10 [Google Scholar]
  57. Lautenschlager GJ, Flaherty VL. 1990. Computer administration of questions: more desirable or more social desirability?. J. Appl. Psychol. 75:310–14 [Google Scholar]
  58. Lievens F, Burke E. 2011. Dealing with the threats inherent in unproctored Internet testing of cognitive ability: results from a large-scale operational test program. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 84:817–24 [Google Scholar]
  59. Lievens F, De Corte W, Westerveld L. 2012. Understanding the building blocks of selection procedures: effects of response fidelity on performance and validity. J. Manag doi: 10.1177/0149206312463941 [Google Scholar]
  60. Lievens F, Harris MM. 2003. Research on Internet recruiting and testing: current status and future directions. Int. Rev. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 18:131–63 [Google Scholar]
  61. Lievens F, Patterson F. 2011. The validity and incremental validity of knowledge tests, low-fidelity simulations, and high-fidelity simulations for predicting job performance in advanced-level high-stakes selection. J. Appl. Psychol. 96:927–40 [Google Scholar]
  62. Lievens F, Sackett PR. 2006. Video-based versus written situational judgment tests: a comparison in terms of predictive validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:1181–88 [Google Scholar]
  63. Linn RL, Baker EL, Dunbar SB. 1991. Complex, performance-based assessments: expectations and validation criteria. Educ. Res. 13:15–31 [Google Scholar]
  64. Makransky G, Glas CAW. 2011. Unproctored Internet test verification: using adaptive confirmation testing. Organ. Res. Methods 14:608–30 [Google Scholar]
  65. Marcus B. 2003. Attitudes towards personnel selection methods: a partial replication and extension in a German sample. Appl. Psychol. 52:515–32 [Google Scholar]
  66. Martin CL, Nagao DH. 1989. Some effects of computerized interviewing on job applicant responses. J. Appl. Psychol. 74:72–80 [Google Scholar]
  67. McFarland L. 2003. Warning against faking on a personality test: effects on applicant reactions and personality test scores. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 11:265–76 [Google Scholar]
  68. Mead AW, Drasgow F. 1993. Equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil cognitive ability tests: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 114:449–58 [Google Scholar]
  69. Mead AW, Michels LC, Lautenschlager GJ. 2007. Are Internet and paper-and-pencil personality tests truly comparable? An experimental design measurement invariance study. Organ. Res. Methods 10:322–45 [Google Scholar]
  70. Mitchel D, Blair M. 2013. Goin’ mobile. A mobile provider’s foray into mobile assessments. Presented at Annu. Conf. Soc. Ind. Organ. Psychol., 28th, Houston
  71. Morelli NA, Mahan RP, Illingworth AJ. 2014. Establishing the measurement equivalence of online selection assessments delivered on mobile versus nonmobile devices. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 22:124–38 [Google Scholar]
  72. Moscoso S, Salgado JR. 2004. Fairness reactions to personnel selection techniques in Spain and Portugal. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 12:187–96 [Google Scholar]
  73. Murphy KR. 1986. When your top choice turns you down: effect of rejected offers on the utility of selection tests. Psychol. Bull. 99:133–38 [Google Scholar]
  74. Murphy KR, Davidshofer CO. 1994. Psychological Testing: Principles and Applications Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
  75. Murphy KR, Tam AP. 2004. The decisions job applicants must make: insights from a Bayesian perspective. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 12:187–96 [Google Scholar]
  76. Nikolaou I, Judge TA. 2007. Fairness reactions to personnel selection techniques in Greece: the role of core self-evaluations. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 15:206–19 [Google Scholar]
  77. Nye CD, Do B, Drasgow F, Fine S. 2008. Two-step testing in employee selection: Is score inflation a problem?. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 16:112–20 [Google Scholar]
  78. O’Leary R, Fetzer M, Hansen A. 2013. Technology-based development of work simulations. Presented at Annu. Conf. Soc. Ind. Organ. Psychol., 28th, Houston
  79. Olson-Buchanan JB, Drasgow F, Moberg PJ, Mead AD, Keenan PA, Donavan M. 1998. Conflict resolution skills assessment: a model-based, multi-media approach. Pers. Psychol. 51:1–24 [Google Scholar]
  80. Pace VL, Borman WC. 2006. The use of warnings to discourage faking on non-cognitive inventories. A Close Examination of Faking Behavior Griffith R. 281–302 Greenwich, CT: Information Age [Google Scholar]
  81. Palmer D, Lunceford S, Patton AJ. 2012. The engagement economy: how gamification is reshaping businesses. Deloitte Rev. 11:52–69 [Google Scholar]
  82. Pearlman K. 2009. Unproctored Internet testing: practical, legal, and ethical concerns. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 2:14–19 [Google Scholar]
  83. Pew (Pew Res. Internet Proj.) 2012. The future of gamification. http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/05/18/the-future-of-gamification-2/#
  84. Pew (Pew Res. Internet Proj.) 2013. Who’s not online and why. http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/09/25/whos-not-online-and-why/
  85. Phillips JM, Gully SM. 2002. Fairness reactions to personnel selection techniques in Singapore and the United States. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 13:1186–205 [Google Scholar]
  86. Ployhart RE, Ehrhart KH, Hayes SC. 2005. Using attributions to understand the effects of explanations on applicant reactions: Are reactions consistent with the covariation principle?. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 35:259–96 [Google Scholar]
  87. Ployhart RE, Weekley JA, Holtz BC, Kemp C. 2003. Web-based and paper-and-pencil testing of applicants in a proctored setting: Are personality, biodata, and situational judgment tests comparable?. Pers. Psychol. 56:733–52 [Google Scholar]
  88. Potosky D. 2008. A conceptual framework for the role of the administration medium in the personnel assessment process. Acad. Manag. Rev. 33:629–48 [Google Scholar]
  89. Potosky D, Bobko P. 1997. Computer versus paper-and-pencil mode and response distortion in noncognitive selection tests. J. Appl. Psychol. 82:293–99 [Google Scholar]
  90. Potosky D, Bobko P. 2004. Selection testing via the Internet: practical considerations and exploratory empirical findings. Pers. Psychol. 57:1003–34 [Google Scholar]
  91. Richman WL, Kiesler S, Weisband S, Drasgow F. 1999. A meta-analytic study of social desirability distortion in computer-administered questionnaires, traditional questionnaires, and interviews. J. Appl. Psychol. 84:754–77 [Google Scholar]
  92. Roth P, Bobko P, McFarland L. 2005. A meta-analysis of work sample test validity: updating and integrating some classic literature. Pers. Psychol. 58:1009–37 [Google Scholar]
  93. Ryan AM, Huth M. 2008. Not much more than platitudes? A critical look at the utility of applicant reactions research. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 18:119–32 [Google Scholar]
  94. Ryan AM, McFarland LA, Kriska SD. 2000. Applicant self-selection: correlates of withdrawal from a multiple hurdle process. J. Appl. Psychol. 85:163–79 [Google Scholar]
  95. Ryan AG, Tippins NT. 2009. Designing and Implementing Global Selection Systems London: Blackwell
  96. Rynes SL. 1993. Who’s selecting whom? Effects of selection practices on applicant attitudes and behavior. Personnel Selection in Organizations Schmitt N, Borman WC. 240–74 San Francisco: Jossey-Bass [Google Scholar]
  97. Rynes SL, Barber AE. 1990. Applicant attraction strategies: an organizational perspective. Acad. Manag. Rev. 15:286–310 [Google Scholar]
  98. Rynes SL, Heneman HG III, Schwab DP. 1980. Individual reactions to organizational recruiting: a review. Pers. Psychol. 33:529–42 [Google Scholar]
  99. Sackett PR, Lievens F. 2008. Personnel selection. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 59:419–50 [Google Scholar]
  100. Salgado JF, Moscoso S. 2003. Internet-based personality testing: equivalence of measures and assessees’ perceptions and reactions. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 11:194–205 [Google Scholar]
  101. Sanderson KR, Viswesvaran C, Pace VL. 2011. UIT practices: fair and effective?. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 48:29–38 [Google Scholar]
  102. Schmidt FL, Greenthal AL, Hunter JE, Berner JG, Seaton FW. 1977. Job samples vs. paper-and-pencil trade and technical tests: adverse impact and examinee attitudes. Pers. Psychol. 30:187–97 [Google Scholar]
  103. Schmidt FL, Hunter JE. 1998. The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychol. Bull. 124:262–74 [Google Scholar]
  104. Schmitt N, Mills AE. 2001. Traditional test and job simulations: minority and majority performance and test validities. J. Appl. Psychol. 86:451–58 [Google Scholar]
  105. Segall DO, Moreno KE. 1999. Development of the computerized adaptive testing version of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. Innovations in Computerized Assessment Drasgow F, Olson-Buchanan JB. 35–66 Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
  106. Shermis MD, Burstein J. 2003. Automated Essay Scoring: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
  107. SHL (SHL Talent Meas.) 2014. Who we are. http://ceb.shl.com/us/about/who-we-are/
  108. Silvester J, Anderson NR. 2003. Technology and discourse: a comparison of face-to-face and telephone employment interviews. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 11:206–14 [Google Scholar]
  109. Smither JW, Reilly RR, Millsap RE, Pearlman K, Stoffey RW. 1993. Applicant reactions to selection procedures. Pers. Psychol. 46:49–76 [Google Scholar]
  110. Stark S, Chernyshenko OS, Drasgow F. 2005. An IRT approach to constructing and scoring pairwise preference items involving stimuli on different dimensions: an application to the problem of faking in personality assessment. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 29:184–201 [Google Scholar]
  111. Steele CM, Aronson J. 1995. Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 69:797–811 [Google Scholar]
  112. Steiner DD, Gilliland SW. 1996. Fairness reactions to personnel selection techniques in France and the United States. J. Appl. Psychol. 81:134–41 [Google Scholar]
  113. Straus SG, Miles JA, Levesque LL. 2001. The effects of videoconference, telephone, and face-to-face media on interviewer and applicant judgments in employment interviews. J. Manag. 27:363–81 [Google Scholar]
  114. Tendeiro JN, Meijer RR, Schakel L, Maij-de-Meij AM. 2013. Using cumulative sum statistics to detect inconsistencies in unproctored Internet testing. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 73:143–61 [Google Scholar]
  115. Tippins NT. 2009. Where is the unproctored Internet testing train headed now?. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 2:69–76 [Google Scholar]
  116. Tippins NT. 2011. Overview of technology-enhanced assessments. Technology-Enhanced Assessment of Talent Tippins NT, Adler S. 1–18 San Francisco: Jossey-Bass [Google Scholar]
  117. Tippins NT. 2012. Implementation issues in employee selection testing. The Oxford Handbook of Personnel Assessment and Selection Schmitt N. 881–902 New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  118. Toldi NL. 2011. Job applicants favor video interviewing in the candidate-selection process. Employ. Relat. Today 38:19–27 [Google Scholar]
  119. Truxillo DM, Bauer TN, Campion MA, Paronto ME. 2002. Selection fairness information and applicant reactions: a longitudinal field study. J. Appl. Psychol. 87:1020–31 [Google Scholar]
  120. Truxillo DM, Donahue LS, Kuang D. 2004a. Work samples, performance tests, and competency testing. Comprehensive Handbook of Psychological Assessment Hersen M. 345–70 Hoboken, NJ: Wiley [Google Scholar]
  121. Truxillo DM, Hunthausen JM. 1999. Reactions of African American and White applicants to written and video-based police selection tests. J. Soc. Behav. Personal. 14:101–12 [Google Scholar]
  122. Truxillo DM, Steiner DD, Gilliland SW. 2004b. The importance of organizational justice in personnel selection: defining when selection fairness really matters. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 13:39–53 [Google Scholar]
  123. United Nations (U.N. News Cent.) 2013. Deputy UN chief calls for urgent action to tackle global sanitation crisis. March 21. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=44452
  124. Vandenberg RJ, Lance CE. 2000. A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organ. Res. Methods 3:4–70 [Google Scholar]
  125. Viswesvaran C, Ones DS. 1999. Meta-analyses of fakeability estimates: implications for personality measurement. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 59:197–209 [Google Scholar]
  126. Waller NG, Reise SP. 1989. Computerized adaptive personality assessment: an illustration with the Absorption scale. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 57:1051–58 [Google Scholar]
  127. Weiner JA, Morrison JD. 2009. Unproctored online testing: environmental conditions and validity. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 2:27–30 [Google Scholar]
  128. Weiss DJ. 1982. Improving measurement quality and efficiency with adaptive theory. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 6:473–92 [Google Scholar]
  129. Wiechmann D, Ryan AM. 2003. Reactions to computerized testing in selection contexts. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 11:215–29 [Google Scholar]
  130. Zickar MJ, Overton RC, Taylor LR, Harms HJ. 1999. The development of a computerized selection system for computer programmers in a financial services company. Innovations in Computerized Assessment Drasgow F, Olson-Buchanan JB. 7–34 Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
  131. Zickuhr K, Smith A. 2012. Digital differences. Pew Internet & American Life Project, April 13. http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Digital-differences.aspx
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091317
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091317
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error